Natural History

Natural history in the Middle Ages was a complex amalgam of fact
and fancy, in which reports concerning fabulous and exotic animals,
plants and minerals were indistinguishable from everyday
experiences concerning indigenous species and domesticated
varieties. Because of the guidelines established by theology and
philosophy, the wide range of data derived from practical
experience and the crafts rarely conflicted with the dicta derived
from the Scriptures or excerpted from Patristic writings.

The methods, vocabulary and conceptual frameworks employed by
medieval writers who touched upon the world of nature were shaped
by a plan loftier than the empirical study of animals, plants and
minerals. As a result, medieval natural history might be compared
to a scrapbook: of the beliefs and claims regarding the creatures
of nature are like so many clippings, each page, so to speak,
representing the random notices concerning a single species with
little attempts at verification or scientific accuracy. For these
reasons, then, it is preferable to speak of "natural
history" than of "biology" and to organize selected
materials in a manner that accords with medieval modes of thought
and experience.

The complex relations between the world of nature and the world
of texts are everywhere apparent in writings on and allusions to
natural history throughout the Middle Ages. As a consequence, the
enormous debt owed to classical antiquity must always be taken into
consideration. Many medieval reports concerning the fauna, flora
and mineralia have their origins in Greco-Roman texts. It is from
such texts (including excerpts, epitomes, paraphrases and the like)
that much of the detailed information was transmitted, later to be
amplified or modified depending upon circumstances; for example,
lexica, poems, sermons and so forth, imposed different requirements
upon the use of ancient and possible pagan material.

The medieval bestiaries, in one fashion or another, were
descended from the anonymous Physiologus, originally
written in Greek and its early Latin versions. With the passage of
time, the number of animals was increased, their names and the
order of presentation changed, various plants and mineral
substances added, and the illustrations and their extra-biological
interpretations varied in accordance with changes in taste. These
variations are readily understandable when it is borne in mind that
the ultimate purpose served by the bestiary was didactic and that
the assorted creatures described therein were merely the vehicles
for arresting the reader's attention. However, despite all the
variations, the beliefs concerning the animals described but not
invariably illustrated were endlessly embellished, with little
regard for factual details based on observation. As such, those
beliefs thoroughly permeated medieval literature and art, sacred
and profane alike. Armed with such texts, surrounded by legends and
fables in which the traits of imaginary creatures were as credible
as those of real ones, and reinforced daily by their symbolic
associations, the independent study of animals for their own sakes
was rarely undertaken. In the strict sense, then, there was no
scientific study of animals such as we associate today with
zoology.

The situation is somewhat different with respect to plants
because the descriptions of the several hundred herbs, shrubs,
trees and their products found in herbals were designed to serve
the eminently practical purpose of medical therapy. As such,
fabulous and imaginary plants, though often cited in medieval texts
of various kinds, found little space in herbals. Owing to the very
old and widespread belief in the virtues of curative properties
(virtutes) attributed to many plants and to the training
required in collecting the correct species for a specified purpose,
the compilers of herbals, many of whom are now unknown, wisely
restricted themselves, for the most part, to practical information.
In this respect, they differed considerably from the bestiarists,
some of whom seem to have had inflated ideas of their literary
abilities. The fund of useful and practical information found in
herbals was based on many centuries of experience with local plants
and the accumulated wisdom associated with the uses, internal and
external, of those plants. As a consequence of the practical needs
which the herbal was designed to meet, the descriptions of many of
the species indigenous to Western Europe were based on or
supplemented by personal knowledge of the plants in question.

Like the bestiaries, lapidaries, or books of stones, seemingly
describe natural objects. In many instances, the precious and
semiprecious minerals and gemstones described therein can be
identified, just as can some of the picturesque beasts of the
bestiaries. But, to continue the analogy, the description of the
gems and jewels figured in the lapidaries are based as much on
imagination, fables, classical mythology, and misunderstandings of
earlier reports, ultimately Greco-Roman, as are those of
bestiaries. In addition to recounting some of the physical
properties of minerals (usually restricted to color and hue), their
medicinal, magical and apotropaic virtues are given a prominent
place.

The aforementioned literary genres - bestiaries, herbals and
lapidaries - provide a basis for understanding the principal
contributions of medieval natural history and, as such, furnish a
convenient point of departure for examining in greater detail its
form and content. However, as popular as they were - and of that,
the surviving manuscripts and incunabula amply testify - they are
not the only sources available to us. A wide range of collateral
material may be consulted profitably, including lexica; leechbooks;
hunting, fishing and agricultural manuals; books of antidotes and
recipes; encyclopedias; books of secrets; travel accounts; and, of
course, theindefinably large class of belles-lettres and
theology.

Animals

With respect to the study of animals, the bestiary is perhaps
the most typical and accessible class of sources. Bestiaries, along
with encyclopedias, provide the best means of ascertaining both
what was known and what was believed about animals in the Middle
Ages. To a limited extent, herbals and books of medical recipes are
also useful, insofar as they describe various invertebrates
(especially mollusks and insects), portions of which were popularly
believed to possess therapeutic value. Other, more specialized,
tracts will be mentioned below.

Despite the fact that the general purpose of bestiaries,
encyclopedias, and herbals differed, the methods employed in their
compilation were much the same, namely, excerpting previous texts
and only rarely introducing material gained through personal
observation. Accordingly, consistency and agreement in matters of
detail are not to be expected. This is much more the case with
bestiaries than with herbals, for while the order of presentation
in the latter frequently is alphabetical and the sources are more
limited, in the case of bestiaries the order sometimes follows the
Physiologus, but at other times seems to have been
determined by the compiler according to criteria now unknown.
Furthermore, since the names of animals were not standardized,
greater freedom was shown in the order of presentation in the
vernacular bestiaries. Finally, one particular class of bestiaries
can be identified readily by the addition of a short etymological
exursus on the name of the animal in question. These etymologies,
usually as fanciful as they were charming, ultimately stem from
Isidore of Seville's Origines sive Etymologiae, one of
the earliest of the encyclopedias and, subsequently, a common
source for medieval writers.

Thus, because it is difficult to correlate the accounts of the
same object in different texts, the technique adopted by the
medieval encyclopedists provides a convenient starting point. They
divided the animal kingdom into quadupedia (essentially
mammals), aves (birds and other flying creatures),
serpentes (reptiles, including amphibia), and
vermes (literally, worms, but including insect larvae,
spiders and almost anything that was not readily accommodated
elsewhere). If to these classes are added the fabulous animals and
composite monsters, we have a family complete roster of the kinds
of animals described or referred to in the Middle Ages.

Quadrupedia

Following the example of the Physiologus, which
probably originated in Alexandria, perhaps as early as the second
century A.D., a number of African and Asian species were included
in the bestiaries and encylopedias, but only rarely in the herbals.
Because little, if any, accurate information regarding such exotic
beasts was available to the compilers, the descriptions in
classical texts, which supplemented the Physiologus, were
slavishly copied or misunderstood or booth. As a consequence, the
compilers were at liberty to alter the accounts in whatever manner
they chose. Usually, however, it was either to sharpen the moral or
allegorical significance or to embellish the original account, for
example, size, ferocity or speed.

Despite these fanciful additions, some of which quickly became a
part of general European animal lore, most of the larger mammals
can be identified. With respect to extra-European species, their
Greek names or synonyms (often in a debased form and ultimately
deriving largely from Aristotle by way of Pliny, Aelian, Solinus
and Isidore), plus crude but recognizable illustrations, enable us
to recognize the lion, tiger, panther, elephant, camel, onager and
hyena. The identification of the elephant is a case in point. Owing
to the convergence of its name in Greek and Latin, then later in
several of the vernacular languages, references to its large size
and thick skin, the value placed upon its tusks, and some fanciful
but still elephantine illustrations, there is little doubt about
the animal intended by writers, most of whom probably never saw a
live specimen. Each of these animals became the subject of fables
and anecdotes, many variations of which appear in the
descriptions.

Two other kinds of information, plus the illustrations,
frequently, but not invariably, appear as part of the description.
One, an etymology of the animal's name, has been mentioned
above. A second kind of information is characteristic of bestiaries
but less frequent in encyclopedias and altogether absent in
herbals, namely, the moral, allegorical, or mystical significance
of the animal. Oftentimes set off by rubricated initials or by a
marginal device, the significatio was the symbolic
analogue of the more prosaic, but not necessarily more accurate,
description. Whether or not the significationes were believed
literally, the fact remains that they provided the preacher with
entertaining illustrations for his sermons and, thus, reached a
large audience. The great emphasis on the significatio lends
credence to the opinion that moral edification, rather than
zoological observation, was, indeed, the basic motive for the
compilation of bestiaries.

Considerable space is devoted in medieval writings to two other
classes of quadrupeds -- indigenous species and domesticated
varieties. Among the former of those two classes, the wolf, bear,
hedgehog and fox attracted much natural and much more unnatural
history in the form of fables, anecdotes, proverbs and
superstitions. The wolf and bear, for example, were feared by all,
not only because of the physical harm which they were capable of
inflicting, but because of another kind of harm as well. Throughout
the whole of Europe, including the British Isles, the wolf was the
subject of widespread superstition. A great deal of energy was
devoted to compiling prayers and charms and to manufacturing
amulets, periapets and other protective devices, some of which
appear to protect you from becoming a wolf.

Despite the practical experience that must have been gained by
hunting wolves, boars, stags and bears - the latter for the purpose
of bear-baiting -- accounts of these animals in bestiaries and
encylopedias are not appreciably more accurate or realistic than
those concerning more exotic species. By consulting hunting
manuals, however, and comparing them with allusions to the chase in
literary texts and with the abundant iconographic evidence, a
balanced account can be reconstructed. The notices concerning the
stag (cervus) provide a good example of the limitation of
bookish accounts found in bestiaries. Except for some miscellaneous
remarks which indicate otherwise, one would little guess that stag
hunting involved considerable preparation and that many
observational data were ready at hand by merely consulting the
hunters and others engaged in the chase. The notices concerning the
stag indicate, rather, how deeply ingrained were the fables
emanating from the Physiologus. It may be noted, however
that the popularity of the Physiologus and the bestiaries did not
interfere with the attempts made by miniaturists and artists to
portray what they saw.

The icongraphical evidence pertaining to medieval natural
history is much too large to be discussed ere. It must be taken
into account, though, as an additional source of information and as
a corrective to some one-sided accounts which emphasize the
unworldliness and otherworldliness of the Middle Ages. By
consulting the iconographical data, not only can the influence of
the bestiaries be visually traced, but the popularity of certain
themes can be better understood within the medieval context -- for
example, the enduring appeal of the fox or the frequency with which
the hare appears in fables, proverbs or recipes.

Domesticated animals, the other class of quadrepeds to be
discussed, include the ox, cow, horse, donkey, sheep, goat, and, of
course, the dog. Pigs, which foraged for themselves and were only
partially domesticated, bore little resemblance to the short-legged
heavily-built hogs raised today. Horses, oxen and donkeys were the
basic source for transportation, hauling and plowing. As such, they
were a normal part of the medieval scene, and the average citizen
could be expected to know something of their habits. Little of the
common knowledge appears in the bestiaries and encyclopedias.
However, by virtue of their importance in the economy, various
specialized tracts were circulating, though on a plane quite
distinct from that of the bestiaries. The former included
agricultural tracts and those pertaining to veterinary medicine.
The military uses of horses, finally provided another rich source
of firsthand information. However, when transmuted by chivalric
romances, there was as little resemblance to campaigns as the
bestiaries bore to plowing.

Aves

Medieval knowledge of and beliefs about birds cover a broad
spectrum, the polar opposites of which may be represented by the
empirically based De arte venandi cum avibus, written by
the Emperor Frederick II, and the Anglo-Saxon allegorical poem
Phoenix, long attributed to Cynewulf. If to these be added
the loose collection of popular tales, exemplified by Chaucer's
lines on Chanticleer and Pertelote, a basis is furnished for
understanding three of the major attitudes towards birds in the
Middle Ages -- practical, symbolical and anecdotal.

There is very little doubt that a good portion of the
information which went into the various tracts of hawking and
falconry was based on the close examination of several species of
accipiters. Details regarding their diet and longevity, mating
habits and change of plumage, diseases and their remedies were
based on many years of experience. The different patterns of
moulting, for example, are described thus: "raptores, that are
in constant need of their flight feathers to aid in capturing their
prey, have a regular form of moult, so that they never entirely
loose their flying ability. Harmless birds that are not in such
urgent need of wing power to gain a living moult in less orderly
fashion; but as they require flying powers to secure shelter and to
avoid dangers, the moult is not entirely without plan. Waterfoul,
on the other hand, make a complete and unusual moult influenced by
the fact that they do not escape dangers nor obtain their
sustenance by flight. By living in the water they attain both
objectives." If the authors of these treatises on birds were
acquainted with the bestiary tradition, they wisely ignored the
heroics of the eagle and such like; in the same fashion, there is
no evidence that the bestiarists knew or cared to know anything
about falconry.

The heavily allegorical accounts of the birds of prey in the
bestiaries represent, so to speak, another world. While some of the
fables have their peculiar charm and may even possess some slight
literary value, they were based not on real birds but on literary
types in which birds are reminders of our moral duties. The turtle
dove was praised in many bestiaries, and other genres as well, for
her quiet, retiring nature, her shyness, constancy and fidelity. As
such, a model was provided for mortal man to remain constant in
belief and steadfast in the face of adversity.

When we come to domestic fowl, we see still a different world.
The cock and hen, and usually nearby the wily fox, the doves in the
loft, ducks in the pond, and geese in the barnyard were part of the
real world, only fragments of which appear in the bestiaries. Their
presence is presupposed in other texts, even though the
storyteller's art sometimes may supply them with a set of
all-too-human attributes.

Pisces

In general, fish did not attract the attention that mammals or
birds did, nor, but for different reasons, reptiles. After all,
fish could not be tamed nor easily domesticated, and their life
histories were virtually unknown. Smoked, salted or fresh, they
formed a dietary staple for many. Yet there was little romance or
poetry connected with that; only hard, and sometimes dangerous,
physical labor.

This does not mean that fish in the broad sense, were ignored by
the bestiarist, encyclopedist, physician or cook. Grouping together
different litrary genres, approximately fifty different species of
fish are mentioned (for example, bream, carp, cod, flounder,
herring, mackerel, perch, pike, salmon, trench, trout, turbot and
wrasse) along with some twenty-five aquatic creatures which today
are assigned to other phyla (for example, crab, dolphin, and sea
urchin) or dismissed as imaginary (for example, the hydrus).

Despite the fact that Aristotle had differentiated between
whales and dolphins, on one hand, and bony and cartilaginous fish,
on the other, the whale was commonly regarded as a fish throughout
the Middle Ages. Since the sight of a living whale was restricted
to fishermen, among whom few literati normally would be
included, reports of its size became exaggerated in direct
proportion to the distance from coastline. Such reports, moreover,
fitted nicely with the biblical accounts of Jonah and his
misadventures. As a consequence, the whale became a popular
subject, not only of bestiaries but in ecclesiastical art and
sculpture as well.

Even more fabulous than the whale was the serra.
Although the characteristics attributed to it are purely imaginary,
it is worth noting as a typical example of a rather common
phenomenon in the history of zoology. As an ordinary animal, albeit
an unusual one and usually uncommon, undergoes a double
transformation: first, one or more of its own characteristics
becomes exaggerated, and second, properties of another animal are
grafted onto it. In the present case, the underlying animal seems
to be a sawfish (Pristis), to which was later added a
somewhat vague report concerning flying fish (family
Exocoetidae), many genera of which are able to glide above
the surface of the water by virtue of their winglike pectoral fins.
The union of these two different fishes produced a strange
creature: "There is a beast in the sea which we call a
serra and it has enormous fins. When this monster sees a
ship sailing on the sea, it erects its wings and tries to outfly
the ship, up to about two hundred yards. Then it cannot keep up the
effort; so it folds up its fins and draws them in, after which,
bored by being out of water, it dives back into the ocean,"
and "Serra is called thus because he has a serrated
cock's comb and, swimming under the vessels, he saws them
up."

As noted above, medieval writers often included, along with
fish, a variety of other aquatic, usually marine, organisms.
Mussels and calms, for example, were prized as delicacies, while
the oyster was valued even more for is pearl, though there is
little indication that its formation was understood. Mollusks,
moreover, was used in medicine for numerous complaints. It may be
noted that in the absence of a taxonomic system, terrestrial
mollusks, such as the common snail and slug, were considered
vermes, while the squid and octopus, also mollusks, were
considered pisces or marine creatures.

Serpentes

The numerous chapters on reptiles in bestiaries ad their
widespread occurrence in various art forms cannot be explained on
ecological or toxicological grounds alone. The repugnance felt
towards serpents and, on the other hand, their fascination for
poets and theologians rest on the same grounds. Both attitudes go
back to a literal acceptance of the creation story in which the
serpent plays a role no less important than the other two figures.
Yet the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of paradise was not the
only subject with which serpent lore was connected.

The viper (or adder, Vipera berus), for example,
appears in a variety of contexts. The strong language of Matthew
3:7 ("brood of vipers") naturally became a text with
endless possibilities for allegory. And because only viper's
flesh, so it was believed, was acceptable in the preparation of the
famous antidote theriaca andromachi, much effort and not a
little cunning was involved in preparing it, sometimes
fraudulently, for therapeutic use.

The asp and the crocodile are further examples of reptiles with
a rich tradition in medieval literature and art. The latter,
especially, is a good example of how the accounts of exotic
creatures become exaggerated and merge into the fabulous,
resulting, in the case of reptiles, in a strange brood, for
example, the basilisk, dragon, griffon and amphisbaena.

Vermes

Used as a catch-all taxonomic term, vermes served
naturalists until the time of Linnaeus. In medieval texts, it was
not only a taxonomic term, but a term which connoted vague yet
pronounced value judgements, hence, the origin of our word
"vermin." Insofar as the entities covered by this class
word can be sorte iut, insects, both mature and alrval forms,
various arachnids, and the common earthworm are among the most
prominent.

Because of their abundance and probably also because of their
annoying habits, mosquitoes, houseflies, lice and fleas were
objects to be eliminated rather than to be studied. The scorpion,
however, because of its larger size and it's painful, poisonous
sting was an object of dread and, as such, received some notice.
For much the same reason, spiders, too, were specifically commented
upon. Their webs, moreover, lent themselves to poetic fancy but
were also used for medicinal purposes.

Among the insects, the bee and the ant received the most
favorable notice. The former, one of the very few domesticated
insects, was well known because of its economic importance; honey
and wax, along with vinegar, were three of the widely used natural
products, and neither household or physician nor apothecary could
do without them. Ants, like bees, because of clearly observable
social habits, lent themselves to moralization and became
established in literature as well as in folklore.

For butterflies and moths the case is somewhat different.
Neither vicious nor harmful (the voracious larval forms, or
caterpillars, were not associated with the mature adults), their
colorful patternings attracted the attention of miniaturists. A
wide range of lepidopterous species are thus depicted in
illuminated manuscripts along with a few more the more conspicuous
Coleoptera.

Monsters and Fabulous Creatures

No account of the animal life recognized in the Middle Ages
would be complete without at least a brief mention of monsters and
the life. This category included imaginary animals, mythological
creatures, and composite forms, some of which were semi-human, for
example, sirens, satyrs, and assorted giants. The extent to which
the existence of these creatures was seriously believed in depends
partially on the entity in question. Some of the imaginary
zoophytes, for example, were taken seriously though the eighteenth
century. However, whether believed or not, monsters and their ilk
played no small role in art and literature and occur not only in
bestiaries and encyclopedias, but also in lexica, travel accounts
and theological writings.

Some of these creatures, for example, the phoenix and siren,
owed their existence to the survival of classical mythology. Others
were the product of Christian bibliolatry, in which, for example,
the dragon, like the devil (or the angels), plays an almost
necessary role in the cosmic drama. Some, like the
leucocrota and manticora, are wholly imaginary.
Others, however, may have resulted from the fusion of real animals,
for example the eale and the autolops (both of
which seem to have been based on an African antelope) or the
unicorn, called monoceros in some bestiaries. The latter
is perhaps the best known of the fabulous creatures which helped to
make the medieval forest - usually their favorite haunt - as
exciting as it was dangerous.

Plants

It is even more the case with plants than with animals that the
medieval records represent two distinct levels: (1) an
empirico-practical level in which the descriptions and uses are
based upon a knowledge of the living plant and (2) a
learned-scholastic level in which the discussions of and references
to plants are based on little, if any, empirical data.

Herbals, with their descriptions (sometimes accompanied by
illustrations) of plants, may appear at first glance to be the
exact counterpart of bestiaries. Herbals resemble bestiaries in the
following respects: (1) they contain an enumeration of the virtues
of the "species" (usually medicinal, in herbals, rather
than allegorical, as in bestiaries); (2) there is a separate
section devoted to each "species"; (3) the order of the
sections is determined by nontaxonomic criteria; and (4) the basis
of many of the descriptions, especially of exotica, is to be found
in Greco-Roman writings.

A closer comparison, however, of herbals and bestiaries (and
lapidaries, which stand closer to the latter) will reveal some
fundamental differences both with respect to method and with
respect to content. First, because the cultivated, indigenous and
naturalized species were often locally abundant and/or widely
distributed, many of them were well known and commonly used for
alimentary and other domestic purposes, for example, cereal
grasses, fruit trees, herbs and legumes. Second, the habitat of
such plants, often described as "known to everyone," is
often carefully and accurately specified in order to facilitate
their collection in the fresh state. Third, except for the exotica
and the magical plants (which latter seldom occur in herbals), the
fabulous aspects are absent. In short, herbals were designed as
practical manuals and were, to the extent that they were used,
continually subjected to testing and refinement. Bestiaries and
lapidaries, on the other hand, were designed for moral edification,
and additions or alterations were the results of reading other
texts, rather than a closer reading of nature.

Whatever might be the limitations of medieval herbals with
respect to taxonomic niceties, they provide us with the fullest
information about the largest numbers of plants known and used. On
matters of detail and for various specialized problems, they must
be supplemented by other sources. Especially useful are leechbooks,
recipe books, encyclopedias, and lexica, many texts of each of
these genres supplying details not found in herbals.

A typical chapter in a herbal may contain the following
information: name and synonyms (sometimes accompanied by an
etymology); description of the plant, including habitat and other
practical information which subserved its therapeutic uses, for
example, phenological data, especially the proper time to collect
and the part or portion to be used; the virtues of the plant in
question; and instructions regarding preparation, administration,
dosage and storage. The format employed was first enunciated in
Dioscorides' De materia medica. It was followed, with
only modern modifications, throughout the Middle Ages.

In the main, most of the larger and more conspicuous flowering
plants indigenous or naturalized in Western Europe were believed to
possess one or more virtues; consequently, their descriptions
outnumber those of any other class of plants in medieval writings.
On the basis of the accumulated experience of many centuries, it
was known that certain plants that led to marked and predictable
physiological responses on the part of the user: for example, as
diuretics, purges, emetics, sternutatories (substances that provoke
sneezing), vermifuges, and so forth, a number of common plants were
routinely used. Many further species were used whose rationale is
not so obvious, for example, as galactagogues (which promote the
secretion of milk), sudorifics (which induce sweating),
aphrodisiacs and rubefacients (which cause redness of the skin), or
which were used, often in compounds, because of a pronounced taste
or odor. The analgesic and narcotic effects attributed to many
plants in the Middle Ages require close examination when one
considers the crude form in which plant material was taken and the
size and frequency of the dosage. Finally, many plants were alleged
to be specific for a particular complaint, but the concept of
disease specificity, like that of pathogenic microorganisms, rested
on no experimental evidence. Nevertheless, because of the necessity
of self-medication, local plants were widely used in times of
illness. Their recognition and collection, preparation and storage,
were part of the local tradition and contributed its share to
natural history. Whether the motive was medical, alimentary or
pecuniary, a knowledge of the local flora was often the beginning
of a medical or scientific career. Herborizations and the formation
of herbaria, a part of the normal training for physicians in the
Renaissance, were outgrowths of established medieval custom.

In the case of cryptogam (for example, mosses, ferns and fungi),
the medieval records are comparatively scanty. Although a few of
the cryptogams which were mentioned by medieval writers can be
identified, principally the ferns and horsetails, they played on
the whole a small role. Since their life cycle was unknown, a bit
of mystery was associated with them. This was especially the case
with the fungi, because of their gross morphology and the highly
poisonous species, were treated in a fashion analogous to the
vermes noted above.

Exotic plants, like animals, were virtually unknown in their
native habitat, though a few reports from travelers to the Holy
Land indicate some recognition of a alien flora. But, in the form
of spices, for both medicinal and culinary purposes, the dried
seeds, bark, leaves and roots formed a major part of the Levantine
imports. For example, pepper, ginger, cloves, cinnamon, and nutmeg
were available in most of the larger cities; another dozen or so
pant products are occasionally encountered. In the same fashion,
various gums and resins, some of which were for liturgical
purposes, others for various economic purposes, were transshipped
to Europe. Some of these substances, for example, frankincense,
myrrh, and dragon's blood (a resin from the species
Dracaena), were sufficiently valuable as to have created
myths of their own. Not surprisingly, fabulous accounts of the
origin of such substances found a ready place in certain genres of
medieval writings.

As noted above, descriptions of imaginary and fabulous plants
did not often appear in herbals. But, as is the case with nearly
all medieval writings, there were exceptions; for example, the
barnacle goose tree and the mandrake both appear in herbals, while
the arbor vitae, the arbor scientiae, the
peridexion, and the like, found an even wider audience,
aided perhaps by their iconography.

However, the near absence of fabulous plants and trees from
herbals should not be taken to mean that the natural history of the
vegetable kingdom was devoid of unnatural elements. Along with the
medieval romances and hagiographical texts, where one, like
Brendan's companions, expected the miraculous, many plants were
invested with extraordinary properties, usually therapeutic, but
capable, at the hands of enchanters, necromancers, and the like, of
being used for nefarious purposes. Many of the plants which fall
under this heading were real plants, for example, betony, peony,
rue, sage and verbena. Yet when these plants were subjected to
rituals or incorporated into artifacts (amulets, talismans, and so
forth), their virtues were greatly augmented. Such plants, which
might be called "magiferous" plants, dot the pages of
herbals, leechbooks, and books of medical recipes.

Some mention must be made, finally, of the nonmedicinal,
nonmagical use of plants and their products. While there existed an
abundance of iconographical evidence and literary references to the
economic uses of plant material, occasionally supplemented by
physical evidence, only a few texts specifically devoted to such
uses have been published. Among these documents might be mentioned
agricultural and horticultural texts which exhibit a range of
knowledge based on practical experience with only a minimum of
theorizing.

In addition to the separate tracts noted above, there exist many
data regarding the diverse uses of plant material n the household
and for sundry artistic and technological purposes. Together, they
indicate a close familiarity with the physical properties of woods,
fibers and other portions of plants which were necessary for the
maintenance of daily life and its amenities.

Minerals

For our purposes it is convenient to consider the lapidary as
the mineralogical analogue of the bestiary and, though to a lesser
extent, of the herbal. Though somewhat simplified, this procedure
serves to bring out several similarities of lapidaries to the other
two genres: (1) The order of presentation varies from one lapidary
to another and is not determined by taxonomic criteria. (2) Major
emphasis is placed upon the medicinal and magical virtues of the
stones (3) Rocks and minerals native to Western Europe are
subordinated to precious and semi-precious gems of exotic origin.
(4) A Greco-Roman basis underlies the accounts of many of the gems.
In three further respects, lapidaries show a closer similarity to
bestiaries than to herbals. (5) Material of a fabulous nature
constitutes an essential part of the description. (6) The stones
are often interpreted allegorically. And (7) biblical allusions are
common.

As the foregoing summary makes clear, lapidaries are to modern
mineralogy as bestiaries are to modern zoology. The compilers of
lapidaries (and the corresponding books in encyclopedias and
entries in glossaries devoted to minerals) had little knowledge of
minerals beyond the cursory inspection of the cut, polished and
mounted gemstones which were widely used in ecclesiastical art.
Moreover, they exhibited little interest in the allied
technological processes, for example, mining, ore-separation, and
the like. With the exception of Albert the Great's De
mineralibus, which demonstrates his curiosity about and some
firsthand information on techniques, the lapidaries must be
supplemented by "Books of Secrets." The latter contain a
wealth of information of a most practical kind. It can only be
noted here that their authors demonstrate a thorough familiarity
with many complicated techniques pertaining to the preparation and
use of mineral substances.

Because, in the descriptions of the stones, all but the most
superficial of physical properties were lacking, lapidaries became
pious catalogs of miracles. The variations in nomenclature,
orthography, and order of presentation, moreover, made it hazardous
to estimate with any degree of precision the number of different
mineral, metallic, and other substances (for example, amber,
karabe, and so forth) described therein. Suffice it to
say, a interest in their miraculous powers and, consequently, in
ownership did not appreciably further experimental
investigations.

Nonetheless, like the bestiaries, lapidaries served the minimal
function of acquainting their readers with the existence and names
of substances whose exotic origin and wonderful properties
stimulated the curious.